Learn how Grafana Loki and HyperDX differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these log management tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Both Grafana Loki and HyperDX have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Grafana Loki leads in popularity with 28,784 stars vs 9,860 stars for HyperDX. The 192% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Grafana Loki has 4,093 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
HyperDX is growing faster, adding 92 stars in the last 30 days (+0.9%) against adding 63 stars for Grafana Loki (+0.2%). HyperDX is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Grafana Loki last updated 9 hours ago and HyperDX 8 hours ago.
Grafana Loki has been in development longer, starting 8 years ago, compared to HyperDX which began 3 years ago. This 5.5-year head start suggests Grafana Loki may have more mature features and established processes.
HyperDX uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Grafana Loki's AGPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Log Management. However, they also have distinct specializations: HyperDX extends into Performance Monitoring (APM), Error Tracking.
Both Grafana Loki and HyperDX offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.